Abortion and environmental laws stem from the same principle, the reduction of the human species to a status of undesirable.

The laws that destroy private property, imprison nature lovers, fine farmers and hunters, and restrict access to vast tracts of wilderness are all done in the name of protecting "nature" from people. This is not simply a matter of laws that can be undone.

There are countless examples of environmental laws run amock with deadly consequences. An excellent one is the banning of DDT, considered a miracle product with profound health benefits during its use. The banning of DDT was an act of pure murderous demogoguery. Not one of the thousands of workers involved in the production of DDT was ever found to have an adverse health condition. Several of the manufacturers ate DDT by the spoonful to demonstrate that it was not a health risk. Nontheless the substance was banned.

There was never any science proving that DDT was dangerous. No such proof exists even today. DDT was banned purely for political reasons, to placate enviro Nazis. It has resulted in the death of tens of millions of children by malaria and other mosquito born diseases. None of these deaths need have occured.

The outrageous premise that falcon egg shells were thinned by DDT - a fraudulent claim - was used as adequate justification for the death of millions of children. In truth the birds had been hunted to near extinction 50 years earlier and were rebounding when the ban was instituted.

If you believe that environmental laws are merely laws that can be changed and have no lasting consequences you have not looked at the issue. Very nearly as many have died due to the dehumanizing influence of environmentalism as from abortion. All have died for the same reason, because there is a culture of death in control of our political establishment that is committed to the eradication of undesirable human beings.

In the 20th century nearly every nation embarked on a campaign to eradicate undesirables. Nearly half a billion humans were slaughtered in the 20th century in obedience to this evil philosophy. The great slaughter in China of 30 million in the name of the Great Leap Forward was exceeded by the murder of as many by a Woman's Right to Choose in the US.

Environmentalism is an evil philosophy that must be eradicated from our nation. It has no place in a society committed to human dignity and freedom.

From a Biblical perspective, the first job given to man was to be a caretaker in the Garden. Creation displays the glory of God, and to treat His creation carelessly insults the Creator.

From a scientific perspective, if we don't care for the environment, we perish. We breathe air, we drink water, we eat food. If these necessities becomes tainted, we die.

I don't agree with many of the actions of the established environmental movement. But the sane, godly principles of being wise stewards of the world in which we live are fundamentally for the good of mankind. Even if the current environmental movement is hostile to God and man, that doesn't mean we need to turn our backs on our responsibilities to care for our environment for the safety and wellbeing of all people.

What I've noticed is that those individuals who consider humans a blight on the planet, and who call for reductions in human population growth, are never willing to lead by example.

___________________

Amen. I have long advocated suicide as the best act of civil disobedience by enviro wackoes. Unfortunately they consider themselves superior creatures who should oversee the eradication of undesirables like you and me.

From a scientific perspective, if we don't care for the environment, we perish. We breathe air, we drink water, we eat food. If these necessities becomes tainted, we die.

____________________

There is a profound difference between the philosophy of the environmental movement and the philosophy of conservation. Environmentalism views humans as an undesirable species. Conservation views humans as primary in nature. The Bible teaches conservation and good husbandry. It does not teach the eradication of the human species to protect nature.

"From a scientific perspective, if we don't care for the environment, we perish. "

Sorry but there is no scientific basis for that comment, many environmental issues are based on poor grasp of science in general. Global warming for instance, at the moment we are on the cusp of a next ice age global temperatures are actually lowering not rising. There is no scientific case for global warming, ice flows and glaciers are thickening in Greenland and Antarctica. the exception being the antarctic peninsula which has always seasonally calved icebergs. The average temperatures in most cities has not shown a uniform rise this implies that global weather patters are very much local not a global system. Some cities show large temperature increases since records began others show decrease in temperature. The main key indicator that global warming is occurring would be the sea levels, and those are static since records began showing flat not increasing trends.

Most environmental lobby groups take portions from respected scientific research and once out of context twist the meaning intent and conclusions of the scientist that published the original white paper.

I agree with the author of this thread they are a group that has a large stake commercially in their agenda. They protect billions of dollars of research grants and sponsorships and donations. They are compromised and not to be trusted in my opinion

9
posted on 03/02/2006 7:19:08 AM PST
by Kelly_2000
( Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch)

"But the sane, godly principles of being wise stewards of the world in which we live are fundamentally for the good of mankind."

Do you know the history of Yellowstone national park? Husbanding the environment caused more damage than good. They destroyed the habitat until the realized they needed to burn portions of the woodland in order that the environment could sustain itself and create new growth. They prevented beavers building dams and flooding tracts until they realized this was also bad for the environment and a necessary attrition mechanism. The point here is that there are so many dynamics and complexities to any ecosystem that manging them is beyond our understanding at present and our technological capability.

Attitudes that promote assumptions that mankind somehow has to interfere with "nature" (whatever that is) are ignorant to the extreme. Most of the countryside and plains in the USA are assumed to be "natural" yet the understanding is false. The native American Indians often shaped the landscape by burning forest and scrub to create grazing prairies for their buffalo hunting requirements. this was on a primitive scale landscaping to a far greater degree of intelligence than most so called environmentalists show today.

10
posted on 03/02/2006 7:26:59 AM PST
by Kelly_2000
( Because they stand on a wall and say nothing is going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch)

Absolutely. I agree. The secular environmentalist movement teaches our youth that humanity is a scourge on the planet. The other side of the DDT issue was something I had never heard until I came to Free Republic.

But I've also seen a backlash by those incensed by the anti-human bias in the environmental movement -- a reaction that treats the planet with contempt and any type of environmental protection as evil, wrong, and stupid.

We should make all decisions from a point of accurate information, considering the impact on the environment, the people, and future generations, minimizing the harm to all but always keeping the priority on mankind. Conservation is conservative.

From a Biblical perspective, the first job given to man was to be a caretaker in the Garden.

You cannot be a caretaker if you are not allowed in the garden. One the jobs of a caretaker is to clear out the dead to prevent forestfires like what we have seen happen in the U.S. in the past couple of years because of the evironuts movement to prevent any human action in forests.

Abortion is the direct slaughter of an innocent human being. There are no gray areas.

Environmentalism can have a wide array of activism. While environmental extremists support laws that indirectly have resulted in hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths (such as the DDT example you provide), this is still an indirect murder. There are other levels of environmentalism that have the intent to help people (although they are often ignorant of side effects).

While I'll agree that modern environmentalism is almost entirely based on ignorance or political motivation, and is thus evil, it does not even come close to the direct evil of abortion.

I am replying to your post because I don't believe that the evil of abortion should be "watered-down". It is a great evil alone by itself.

I am replying to your post because I don't believe that the evil of abortion should be "watered-down". It is a great evil alone by itself.

____________________

The evil of abortion can not be separated from the philosophy that is at its core. The fruit of the poisoned tree is death by the eradication of species. Whether the justification is A Woman's Right to Choose, the Preservation of Endangered Species, The Great Leap Forward, or the hundreds of attempts in the 20th century to rid the world of undesirables, it all amounts to the same thing, death to vast numbers of humans. Do not make the mistake of thinking that unintended consequences is a lesser evil. The death of a baby is, after all, the unintended consequence of the choice to end a pregnancy.

Sorry but there is no scientific basis for that comment, many environmental issues are based on poor grasp of science in general.

You're a microbiologist. Are you telling me that you'd like to live in a place where the drinking water is polluted with human waste? You certainly are familiar with cholera and dysentery. Would you want your children to live in a city where the air quality is so poor that children, the elderly, and the infirm can't venture outdoors? You deny any connection between pure air, water and food and human health?

I don't believe in global warming. I believe there are cycles in the earth's weather, perhaps controlled by solar activity, that make some periods warmer than others. I do not deny that there is a lot of bad environmental science out there. But that only means we need to differentiate between the bad and the good, not get rid of all efforts to protect the environment.

I live in Florida, where the water table is only feet below us. I've seen beautiful lakes die in a matter of years because of improper treatment of runoff. As the state's population has grown, the state's natural resources have deteriorated. Does that mean we halt population growth in Florida? Absolutely not! I believe that wise growth is possible and necessary. Wise use of our resources is imperative.

The Dust Bowl in Oklahoma is another good example of how a terrible drought combined with poorly managed use of resources resulting in environmental catastrophe which caused massive human suffering. Does that mean farming was evil? Absolutely not! But wise soil conservation techniques have helped protect the land since then.

Do you know the history of Yellowstone national park? Husbanding the environment caused more damage than good. They destroyed the habitat until the realized they needed to burn portions of the woodland in order that the environment could sustain itself and create new growth. They prevented beavers building dams and flooding tracts until they realized this was also bad for the environment and a necessary attrition mechanism.

Have there ever been misguided attempts in which "protecting" the environment was actually harmful? No question. But as population grows, especially in population-dense areas, population puts a strain on the resources. We need wise practices to manage and protect these resources so that they will be around for future generations. Teddy Roosevelt said it better than I ever could:

Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land; but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us. I ask nothing of the nation except that it so behave as each farmer here behaves with reference to his own children. That farmer is a poor creature who skins the land and leaves it worthless to his children. The farmer is a good farmer who, having enabled the land to support himself and to provide for the education of his children leaves it to them a little better than he found it himself. I believe the same thing of a nation.

I am not making a theological argument in support of a ban on DDT. Frankly, from what I've read, the ban was most likely a mistake. I just don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Get rid of the junk science and secular de-humanist philosophy that plagues the environmental movement in this country, but strive to be good stewards of our land.

Then we need to take back the garden! I agree there have been very harmful and misguided policies, and unfortunately, the educational system in this country starts teaching children the environmentalists agenda from the cradle.

The evil of abortion can not be separated from the philosophy that is at its core.

I still disagree with the comparison.

Abortion is a greater evil precisely because of the unintended consequences, its core philosophy AND the very direct, conscious and personal evil enacted upon an unborn individual (done one-by-one but million and millions of times).

Environmentalism, at its worst, lacks the individual and personal aspect of abortion.

While I'll agree that both abortion and environmentalism have resulted in numerous victims in the 20th century, abortion has many times more participants.

It has resulted in the death of tens of millions of children by malaria and other mosquito born diseases. None of these deaths need have occured.

You've been reading too much junkscience.com (which is largely junk in and of itself- selective citations). The ban is not worldwide and DDT would do little to prevent 'millions' of deaths. Mosquito resistance to DDT occurs within just a few years. Uggh don't even want to start the same arguements.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.